That's a fair point, and probably argues more for being able to take time off. It's also worth noting that for most people outside the immediate circles (and from whom inward-dumping seems most prevalent and toxic) aren't utterly enmeshed in the constant struggle.
Caregiving itself is extraordinarily trying and debilitating in that context. I'd like to see better understanding, support, and options there. Others' suggestions and experiences very much welcomed.
Another issue of chronic / long-term caregiving is that there are often frictions and conflicts which develop within families or other smaller groups, often pitting immediate caregivers (e.g., a spouse or adult children living with or near (an) elderly parent(s)), and more distant siblings or other relations.
Add in issues of long-standing relationship conflicts, cognitive decline, or paranoia and misperceptions arising as co-morbidities of many many long-term conditions or just simple old age, and the mix becomes all the more problematic. Oftentimes this is further compounded by support organisations (governmental or otherwise) which often aren't, or which assume an adversarial stance for or against specific parties, often unfounded.
That goes to a subtle and important point - although the advice in the article appears to be excellent in practice it is unfortunate that they led with the "This isn’t just about you." example. It is important to recall that, in a strategic sense, a crisis is not all about the person in crisis. An individual's crisis is can easily be a communal experience. Although it isn't a good time to start arguing with someone about that.
I'd go as far as saying the person suffering will probably suffer a lot less if their attitude is one of "although this is happening to me, this isn't all about me". Acceptance of that truth helps lead to peace.
If you're correct that this isn't all about the person at the heart of the crisis, and in at least some sense you are, it's still not the place to litigate that matter with that person.
And the problem with crises, health, existential, or otherwise, is that they not only bring out the best and worst in people, but they bring out the best and worst of people (as in types of people, not aspects of an individual). There are those who are drawn to an emergency out of an earnest desire to help (and in the best cases, with an awareness of whether or not they are in fact doing so). And there are those who see the same situation as an opportunity for personal gain, attention, or simply to sow chaos.
That second type includes both the deliberate and intentional and the helpless, in the sense that they simply cannot help themselves. (See Bonhoeffer on stupidity and evil: <https://bigthink.com/thinking/bonhoeffers-theory-stupidity-e...>.) Both are quite harmful, though in different ways.
(Toxic people, as with cancers, are a shared symptom complex with differing etiologies.)
But the Ring Theory gives both a guide to what to do, as well as a handy index to who is failing to do so. And those (usually in secondary and tertiary rings) can do well to serve as gatekeepers and guardians excluding those harmful types, or finding clever ways to occupy themselves in ways such as to do the least harm.
Of that last, another element of crises is that there is all manner of ordinary mechanics of life which are still required but that those key to the crisis have difficulty in accomplishing. Tasking those whose words and actions can be harmful with performing the more remote elements of this (running errands, shopping, remote meal prep which can be heated or served on site, etc.) is a good way to give them the perception of being useful (and quite often they honestly are) without being excessively harmful.
That said, having to constantly remain aware that this is required, and to shop those who cannot contribute positively in the immediate vicinity, is itself taxing and tiring.
I don't know about litigate, but if someone is sick for long time and you are close to them, at some point maintaining that relationship requires talking about your own challenges, related to the illness or otherwise and for the other person to accept some practical and emotional responsibilities despite being sick. Otherwise you can certainly remain their caregiver and therapist but gradually lose connection as spouse/parent/child/friend/etc. Most people would not prefer that and at the same time it's easy to focus only on your own struggles and forget about needs of others.
I also think, based on both study and experience, that often it's better to simply act than to attempt to argue or negotiate.
Acting (including withdrawing your own support) doesn't require the participation or cooperation of the other party. Argument and negotiation both do. A fundamental limitation of rational interactions is the reliance on rationality by your counterparty.
> If you're correct that this isn't all about the person at the heart of the crisis, and in at least some sense you are, it's still not the place to litigate that matter with that person.
Yeah, but that is why the example is unfortunate. If you read very closely, you'll notice that I said that too and I suspect we're in furious agreement. The problem with that example is it confuses two important issues - the right thing for one person to say, and the best thing for the other person to think.
Caregiving itself is extraordinarily trying and debilitating in that context. I'd like to see better understanding, support, and options there. Others' suggestions and experiences very much welcomed.
Mayo Clinic on caregiver burnout:
<https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9225-caregive...>
Another issue of chronic / long-term caregiving is that there are often frictions and conflicts which develop within families or other smaller groups, often pitting immediate caregivers (e.g., a spouse or adult children living with or near (an) elderly parent(s)), and more distant siblings or other relations.
Add in issues of long-standing relationship conflicts, cognitive decline, or paranoia and misperceptions arising as co-morbidities of many many long-term conditions or just simple old age, and the mix becomes all the more problematic. Oftentimes this is further compounded by support organisations (governmental or otherwise) which often aren't, or which assume an adversarial stance for or against specific parties, often unfounded.